We just remember the potsdam´s troublemaker 2006, where one young blackboy was almost killed by the Neonazi on the bus station.

To be honest beside of this social problem, some nice german maids who married asian boys here (some of my friends marry them happily)have pretty children, while some others are just showing desinterrest and unsympathetic like their male counterparts.

For Instance: if you ask for some helps & knock at their doors, they won´t open it. I & other friends have exerience this for many times.

Frankly, the generalization is always bad, there are some nice german maids too. Iam not saying that I dislike the germans, but I just try to describe their way of thought about other ethnicities.

The differences between Germany and the US or Canada are:

In the States and Canada the situation might be very different, cause there are large chinatowns almost in each big city which they do not exist in germany. Moreover there are larger asian populations out

OralAdvocate, thanks for posting what you can remember. I trust you sicne you are the first reg to post these. I am growing more and more convinced that Fordham is barely better than Brooklyn and Cardozo and just attracts higher ranked students, whose numbers boost the ranking of the school. I think I may have to leave NY to go to a good law school.

Yup. Grabbed a cup of joe along the way. Its not too shabby of a day out, but still needs to bump up about ten more degrees. Too bad its going to rain. There is no damn spring around here. Just winter to disgustingly humid summer.

If students choose between H and S equally, this means H has to accept three times as many students as S. What's surprising is that H is able to compete for #2. This is why the rankings are stupid, though I don't disagree with the results. Yale is best, Harvard and Stanford are about equal.

Think about it this way. Assume all H and S admittees are cross-admits. If one in four chooses S and three in four choose H, then S still gets the same student body numbers as H.

You're wrong. It enables S to maintain a strong student body. It dramatically increases S's LSAT and GPA scores. H has worse GPA scores than S, and this is why. If S and H had each were only allowed to admit 300 students, H would destroy S in these rankings.

what? did you not see that H's LSAT is significantly better than S while hte GPA is only slighly lower? Your argument is 1. H is bigger than S 2. H must accept more students, thus lower standards 3. S has stronger student body.

However, as far as the numbers are concerned, thus is clearly not the case. The question is why, given that H as better numbers and rep scores, it is ranked below S.

s is much more selective...the fact is s rejects many people that h admits because they don't have adequate soft factors

of those that are actually cross admits between h and s (but are not accepted to y) about half choose h and half choose s

thus s is really getting a stronger student body because they are more selective in their admissions and don't lose the best students to h (after y, h takes half and s takes half but then h gets a bunch more that s would never even consider)

h rejects many people that s admits because they don't score well on the lsat. the reality is that s doesn't even get close to half of h/s cross-admits. even the dean of sls has admitted that. but it doesn't have to, as i pointed out.

yeah, and the median hls student has a gpa at the 25th percentile for sls

the point is sls could boost its lsat easily if it took people with lower gpas. they, however, realize that difference in lsat scores at that end of the curve is miniscule and choose instead to look at the more substantive gpa in addition to soft-factors.

since it is quite clear that h/s (but not y) cross admits split 50/50 it should be just as clear that s could easily boost its lsat scores if it chose to admit from a different segment of the lsat/gpa spread.

the dean of SLS never admitted that. the quotation you are thinking about does not take into account that a third to a half of HS cross admits also got into yale, and go there. reading comprehension, highskoolhottie. i know it's tough in this time of ego crisis, but please try.

No. My argument is that the fact that SLS and HLS have similar index scores suggests that HLS is a much better school, because SLS only needs to fill up 1/3 of HLS's class. This shouldn't even be controversial. Now, I don't actually think HLS is a much better school, because I think most cross-admits would rather be on the east coast, and they prefer Harvard's greater aura, compensating for the problem I identified.

For simplicity's sake, imagine a law school that had ten students per year and a faculty of the quality of YHSC. Do you deny that this school would destroy YHS in the USNWR rankings, even if students favored those schools in large margins? Suppose only 10% of students would choose the hypothetical school over YHS. Then the hypothetical school could accept only people in the top 10% of the YHS student body numbers-wise, fills its class, and dominate in the rankings (because it only needs 1% of these students).

what you're missing is that USNWR is not measuring the merit of the school, it's measuring the merit of the student body. it's trying to answer the employer's question of which schools it should be more impressed by and the student's consequential choice of which school he should attend.

yes the hypothetical school you describe would slaughter all others in the rankings. and no it would not take nearly as much effort or outlay of resources to found that school as it would to found HLS today. But if you're measuring which STUDENT BODY is more impressive per capita, you'd still admit that the average student at this hypothetical school beats the average student at Y, S, or H. and knowing that employers will agree with that assessment, you'd still (presumably) pick the hypothetical school if you were admitted to all four and all else was equal.

so this ranking is an indictment not of HLS as an institution but of its average student.

i guess that depends on whether you're looking at gpa or lsat. the rankings themselves are not an indictment of the student body, since you could just look to the gpa and lsat for that. the thing that takes hls out is that its student body is bigger, making it more difficult to keep its expenditures per student up and its student/faculty ratio down

actually, what happens is that as you have more students they generate more revenue and require that you hire more profs (and the revenue allows for this)...then as they get older there are more people donating to the endowment allowing for higher per pupil expenditures...so you're whole argument about s/f ratio and pp expenditures makes little sense

Date: March 28th, 2006 5:17 PMAuthor: The wife John McCain callously left behind

I'm convinced, grainy scan and all. It would take an inordinate amount of time to have researched all that is in the footnote (e.g. provisionally ABA-accepted schools, Synovate...) Has to be real, or the flame of all time.

Date: March 28th, 2006 10:19 PMAuthor: CurioGeorgeSubject: What do you think about this?

Earlier today I posted this question on the comments section of this blog, run by law professors: "I have a question. Does linking (or hosting) to work that one knows is copyrighted constitute contributory infringement. Even if not, is it proper for law professors to engage in this type of activity?" The first time I posted the question, it was summarily deleted. I posted a second time and in response, these professors eliminated all comments and suppressed the ability to make new comments. Pretty strange behavior from members of the academe, if you ask me.

At first I thought this was flame, but when I pulled up the link it looks perfectly legitimate especially in light of the fact that all the new LSAT and GPA numbers correspond to what the schools post on their website for last year. Either someone is putting up a great hoax or someone has just leaked some very valuable information.

stonewall, you seem like a legit character. i'm going to american law next year. please advise me of this decision. are you going to oxford next year? have you heard about american's program in madrid? i wrote some au students who are over there (i got their e-mails from the school), but they may have found my inquiries offensive.

I think you will like it at AU. I was thinking about doing the Madrid program but it takes an extra year and you have to be completely fluent in Spanish. Also, it only allows you to practice law in Spain and certain Latin American countries. I would like to go to Oxford, but perhaps for their international relations doctoral program rather than anything legal. Apart from a few liberal professors who would like to see me die, American has a really friendly atmosphere and there isn't alot of cutthroat competition going on. Hope this helps.

Thanks. Are you saying that graduation from the Madrid program limits you to practicing in Spain or in Latin America and would be a hindrance to practicing in the U.S.? Where else would you expect it to allow you to practice? Sout America, I assume. Also, I spoke with the Madrid program director who made it seem like I was a shoe in for the program even if I weren't fluent because I was a Spanish major in college. I found it a little hard to believe and suspected she may have been fabricating to try to get me to come to AU. Any thoughts? How's the job search going for most? You can hit up duane.wade@gmail.com if you want to prevent AU discussions from dominating this thread. Thanks a lot.